(CR) Planet With

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by 4th Dimension

Humanity hasn't destroyed a planet YET, simply because we still haven't discovered means to do so. Then again even with out paltry means we are on the road IRL to fucking up Earth royally.

It's an issue of scale, someone might be pissed off by excesses of one group's worst members and go on a crusade and might be lauded for it. In this case the dragon was incensed at what worst of Sirians were doing and what they might do on larger scale and went on a rampage.

It doesn't change what's happening. They openly employ violence, and even equip Earth to engage in a much more advanced and dangerous form of violence, while using overwhelming force to render an entire species incapable of violence. Sure, they're not technically eradicating the species and their planets, but still what we've got is a group that openly lobotomizes races in fear that they might one day do something bad.

What makes it worse is that the way things have played out I get the impression, as I mentioned before, that this "Evolution of Power" is a crucial point to the "Evolution of Love". I mean, the way things played out with the Seals seems to suggest that growing toward Love is at least highly facilitated if not dependent on the ability to reject the satisfaction offered by the Seal. A few have accepted the satisfaction and wound up with absolutely no motivation for anything, no ability to grow in any way. But those that acknowledged their problems and openly rejected the illusion in favor of finding their own way out seem to have grown and matured as people, and in fact the first demonstration of "Love" came from such people. My point is, it could be that Power is just a step in the process of maturing toward Love and instead of stopping races going the wrong way what Nebula's really doing is crippling people right before they matured.

[Guardian Enzo]

Justice is a siren’s song, a mirage that lures the strong down the path of oppression. Dragon-Takashi's philosophy is disqualified right out of the box.

As for Sealing, it's blatant manifest destiny colonialism (and yes, hypocrisy), paired with the power to effectively lobotomize who they choose. That's right out.

That leaves the Pacifist Faction... And I see some warning signs there, too. There may not be an equivalency here, but the flaws in their thinking are going to be exposed over the next episodes, I'd bet on it. And the real story is going to come from Souya having to look at all this and make up his own mind about what sort of truth he should try and live by.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

Justice is a siren’s song, a mirage that lures the strong down the path of oppression. Dragon-Takashi's philosophy is disqualified right out of the box.

As for Sealing, it's blatant manifest destiny colonialism (and yes, hypocrisy), paired with the power to effectively lobotomize who they choose. That's right out.

That leaves the Pacifist Faction... And I see some warning signs there, too. There may not be an equivalency here, but the flaws in their thinking are going to be exposed over the next episodes, I'd bet on it. And the real story is going to come from Souya having to look at all this and make up his own mind about what sort of truth he should try and live by.

I don't know about "colonialism" though. That implies a desire to move in or establish some manner of system there through which they can at least obtain resources. I don't recall anything in their plans that involve actually doing ANYTHING to the sealed planets besides lobotomizing the residents so they'd live out generation after generation in peaceful stasis. I'm not sure what it is, and I agree it's hypocritical, but I don't believe that fits the term "colonialism".

[4th Dimension]

Originally Posted by Haak

False Equivalence.

Being a potential murderer is not as bad as an actual murderer. And it certainly isn't worse.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Nobody is meant to be lauding what the Dragon did. At the end of the days lives were lost, potentially billions of lives were lost. Intention has no place when it comes to judgement here. By far the most most important issue of scale is the amount of lives lost. That supercedes all other ideologies.

And nobody is lauding it. In the end as soon as Nebula was aware of what the Dragon was doing they put a stop to him.

This is a case of a cop becoming enraged by the excesses of a criminal group and going on a rampage murdering all the members not caring if they are guilty or not. In the end the cop will be arrested because while the majority might have been members they didn't deserve death. Proper procedure should have been observed. But that still wouldn't stop some calling this justice, putting a stop to these dangers to society. Many movies were made under this premise.

Only here the scale is larger. Instead of organisations we have civilizations and Nebula seems to have put themselves in charge of policing the Galaxy and maintaining the order. The proper procedure with dangerous wild civilizations that would present a danger to others is to either reform them or neutralize their threat by jailing them/making sure they won't bother others.

[Dengar]

All I'm saying it's not hypocrisy. It's most certainly wrong, it's most certainly not moral, but to be a hypocrite you actually have to be doing the same thing that you accuse your opponent of.

If A is using X, to stop B from also doing X, that is hypocrisy. (although, in reality, it is what happens when authorities use violence to stop another's violence, is that also wrong?)

However, in this case, A is using Y to stop B from doing X.... It is a false equivalence.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by Dengar

All I'm saying it's not hypocrisy. It's most certainly wrong, it's most certainly not moral, but to be a hypocrite you actually have to be doing the same thing that you accuse your opponent of.

If A is using X, to stop B from also doing X, that is hypocrisy. (although, in reality, it is what happens when authorities use violence to stop another's violence, is that also wrong?)

However, in this case, A is using Y to stop B from doing X.... It is a false equivalence.

The question becomes exactly where you draw the line of equivalency. It doesn't change that they're using force to take away the future from people on account of the fear that they'll use force to steal others' future. If you want to be specific and technical and say that they're not hypocrites because they aren't technically killing their victims you could just as easily make an argument that it's not hypocritical to use rape and torture to control someone you're afraid might commit murder. They're not killing the person, but they are violating them on a very deep level and forcefully stealing their ability to resist.

I would not really call it hypocritical if they were, as 4th Dimension said, simply sealing them in, jailing them, locking them on their planet and blocking them from leaving. But that's not what they're doing. It was already established that the "sealing" takes away a crucial part of who and what you are, snuffing the fire in your heart. That's why I keep comparing it to lobotomizing. You're taking something from the person, cutting off their ability to feel passion or enthusiasm. There are plenty who would argue it's just as bad, if not worse, to do such a thing to someone against their will. And yes, given the level of force and the repugnancy of the action, there would be plenty who understandably and maybe correctly refer to this as hypocrisy.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by 4th Dimension

And nobody is lauding it. In the end as soon as Nebula was aware of what the Dragon was doing they put a stop to him.

This is a case of a cop becoming enraged by the excesses of a criminal group and going on a rampage murdering all the members not caring if they are guilty or not. In the end the cop will be arrested because while the majority might have been members they didn't deserve death. Proper procedure should have been observed. But that still wouldn't stop some calling this justice, putting a stop to these dangers to society. Many movies were made under this premise.

Only here the scale is larger. Instead of organisations we have civilizations and Nebula seems to have put themselves in charge of policing the Galaxy and maintaining the order. The proper procedure with dangerous wild civilizations that would present a danger to others is to either reform them or neutralize their threat by jailing them/making sure they won't bother others.

I think it's rather silly to apply such a small scale analogy to such a large scale issue. The extrapolation is wildly unreliable.

It's also circular reasoning. Assuming that the situation is the same as criminals and police is exactly the kind of premise that's being put in doubt in the first place. You've arbitrarily decided that the Siriusians/humans are criminals based on standards that aren't applied to Nebula. This case the supposed "criminals" haven't even committed any crime but they're being "policed" by a group that (in your own analogy) has.

But that still wouldn't stop some calling this justice, putting a stop to these dangers to society. Many movies were made under this premise.

And they would be categorically wrong. I don't see what your point is here.

Originally Posted by Dengar

All I'm saying it's not hypocrisy. It's most certainly wrong, it's most certainly not moral, but to be a hypocrite you actually have to be doing the same thing that you accuse your opponent of.

If A is using X, to stop B from also doing X, that is hypocrisy. (although, in reality, it is what happens when authorities use violence to stop another's violence, is that also wrong?)

However, in this case, A is using Y to stop B from doing X.... It is a false equivalence.

Straw man logic.

We're talking about a double standard in their moral justification, not their methods.. Hypocrisy is not limited to one form only.

I'll repeat myself: You can't generalise humanity to such a degree as to declare them violent but not apply that same standard to yourself. As far as track records go, humanity hasn't destroyed an entire planet yet, whilst Nebula has. That's a textbook definition of hypocrisy.

[Dengar]

It wasn't Nebula that destroyed planets, it was the Dragon. Are you going to hold an entire species accountable for the actions of one individual?

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

The question becomes exactly where you draw the line of equivalency. It doesn't change that they're using force to take away the future from people on account of the fear that they'll use force to steal others' future. If you want to be specific and technical and say that they're not hypocrites because they aren't technically killing their victims you could just as easily make an argument that it's not hypocritical to use rape and torture to control someone you're afraid might commit murder. They're not killing the person, but they are violating them on a very deep level and forcefully stealing their ability to resist.

I would not really call it hypocritical if they were, as 4th Dimension said, simply sealing them in, jailing them, locking them on their planet and blocking them from leaving. But that's not what they're doing. It was already established that the "sealing" takes away a crucial part of who and what you are, snuffing the fire in your heart. That's why I keep comparing it to lobotomizing. You're taking something from the person, cutting off their ability to feel passion or enthusiasm. There are plenty who would argue it's just as bad, if not worse, to do such a thing to someone against their will. And yes, given the level of force and the repugnancy of the action, there would be plenty who understandably and maybe correctly refer to this as hypocrisy.

But their methods don't kill anyone. They don't even harm anyone. I hesitate to even call this "using force".

If using some alien mumbo jumbo to change a person counts as violence, then you have to call using hypnosis/drugs/propaganda/all of the above, violence as well.

Is blackmail also violence?

Is coercion violence? (do this thing for me or I will fire you)

Is calling people names on the internet violence? Things like those can change people as well. Where is the line drawn?



Btw, it's fine if you still disagree. But if you want to somehow convince me or even call me "wrong", I'm going to need some detailed answers.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Dengar

It wasn't Nebula that destroyed planets, it was the Dragon. Are you going to hold an entire species accountable for the actions of one individual?

I wonder if I'm going to have to keep repeating myself...

Like I said: It's no good saying he was an anomaly.
Nebula's argument itself is based upon a generalisation. If they don't apply that same generalisation to themselves then that is a textbook case of hypocrisy.

Nebula seriously made the argument that they're responsible with power whilst humans aren't, after one of their own destroyed an entire planet. Even if you argue that we're more involved in the potential destruction of our own planet, it's still nowhere near as comparable as actually having done it.

And to top it off Snoopy the Dog still had the gall to blame the Siriusians for the destruction when he was talking to Sensei on that stage scene in Episode 3.

[Dengar]

Originally Posted by Haak

I wonder if I'm going to have to keep repeating myself...

Like I said: It's no good saying he was an anomaly.
Nebula's argument itself is based upon a generalisation. If they don't apply that same generalisation to themselves then that is a textbook case of hypocrisy.

Nebula seriously made the argument that they're responsible with power whilst humans aren't, after one of their own destroyed an entire planet. Even if you argue that we're more involved in the potential destruction of our own planet, it's still nowhere near as comparable as actually having done it.

And to top it off Snoopy the Dog still had the gall to blame the Siriusians for the destruction when he was talking to Sensei on that stage scene in Episode 3.

Repeating yourself and passive-aggressively providing he same link you used in a previous post doesn't suddenly help change my mind.

You're going to have to explain how Nebula is making assumptions about the human race based on a single action of a single individual, because even a regular human being is going to be able to reach this conclusion just by looking at our entire history (or present day for that matter, where people prefer using their fists, mob pressure, or internet trolling, when they cannot win an argument with words).

[Haak]

Originally Posted by Dengar

Repeating yourself and passive-aggressively providing he same link you used in a previous post doesn't suddenly help change my mind.

Actually it does clearly help. Only now have you made a point that actually responds to the post I made from the beginning. I no longer have to repeat myself. XP

You're going to have to explain how Nebula is making assumptions about the human race based on a single action of a single individual, because even a regular human being is going to be able to reach this conclusion just by looking at our entire history (or present day for that matter, where people prefer using their fists, mob pressure, or internet trolling, when they cannot win an argument with words).

So you're telling me it's only hypocritical if it's based on the criteria of what proportion is involved but the severity of it doesn't matter? That when you judge another race based on how war-like they are, you can ignore your own race's track record which is far far worse because it's a single individual? Sorry but that sounds like Cherry Picking.

On a side note:

If you look at our history, you'll actually find our biggest characteristic is progress. (and remember that Nebula is judging us on war-like tendencies, not our environmental record).

And for the record, I could apply that same generalisation to Nebula if they indeed have a history of lobotomising whole planets (as is implied). But in any case i could also hold them accountable just from their track record with the Dragon. Sorry but the "single individual" excuse doesn't hold here. We're talking about the destruction of an entire planet. If Nebula thought the Dragon could be trusted with power then that's their responsibility (and also proves that they're not a good judge of character).

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by Dengar

It wasn't Nebula that destroyed planets, it was the Dragon. Are you going to hold an entire species accountable for the actions of one individual?



But their methods don't kill anyone. They don't even harm anyone. I hesitate to even call this "using force".

If using some alien mumbo jumbo to change a person counts as violence, then you have to call using hypnosis/drugs/propaganda/all of the above, violence as well.

Is blackmail also violence?

Is coercion violence? (do this thing for me or I will fire you)

Is calling people names on the internet violence? Things like those can change people as well. Where is the line drawn?



Btw, it's fine if you still disagree. But if you want to somehow convince me or even call me "wrong", I'm going to need some detailed answers.

They "don't harm anyone"? They reach into people's minds and take out the spark! It may not be physical harm but still changing a person's nature to the core without consent, making it so that they no longer have the drive to do anything significant or pursue what they desire, is still messed up. And that's one big thing you seem to be glossing over: consent. These people simply showed up and brainwashed the people who most certainly didn't want to be brainwashed. Again, this is somewhere between lobotomy and rape, a direct nonconsensual violation of the person.

And yes, plenty of things that don't cause physical harm can be just as much cruel and forceful. Plenty of other things aren't, but plenty of things are. Calling someone a name, even a cruel name that no one should say, probably wouldn't constitute violence. But using force to bypass a person's consent and take away a part of who they are probably would. Even more so since it's been established that they have the potential for Love as well as Power, but indications and conversations suggest that all potential for evolution is taken by this technique.

[4th Dimension]

Originally Posted by Haak

I think it's rather silly to apply such a small scale analogy to such a large scale issue. The extrapolation is wildly unreliable.

It's also circular reasoning. Assuming that the situation is the same as criminals and police is exactly the kind of premise that's being put in doubt in the first place. You've arbitrarily decided that the Siriusians/humans are criminals based on standards that aren't applied to Nebula. This case the supposed "criminals" haven't even committed any crime but they're being "policed" by a group that (in your own analogy) has.

Except it's not really that kind of extrapolation given the number of datapoints that out history has, that doesn't paint a nice picture of us and what do we tend to do when we encounter strange, different and those weaker than us that have something we want.
Now it's not all darkness and gloom, hence the Pacifists thinking we could be reformed. But there is also plenty of bad stuff to pick from to make the argument about our essential incompatibility with Nebula's idea of peaceful universe.

And we have committed crimes. Pretty much all of us have learned how to turn our eyes away from daily injustices happening in our world, and hell in case it's our side doing shit, there is plenty of cases one might base a case on that humanity in general tends towards being easily led astray or tacitly supporting bad stuff from lack of interest.

Originally Posted by Haak

And they would be categorically wrong. I don't see what your point is here.

They would be wrong, yet a sizeable portion of humanity will still find their action to be justice in a way. Or done in pursuit of justice. Which is basically how Generalissimo feels about the incident. He thinks Dragon's actions were done in order to eliminate a dangerous threat to other sentiments living in the galaxy and therefore "he was pursuing his own justice" but he was still legaly wrong, hence both factions joining up to bring the Dragon down.

Originally Posted by Haak

Straw man logic.

We're talking about a double standard in their moral justification, not their methods.. Hypocrisy is not limited to one form only.

I'll repeat myself: You can't generalise humanity to such a degree as to declare them violent but not apply that same standard to yourself. As far as track records go, humanity hasn't destroyed an entire planet yet, whilst Nebula has. That's a textbook definition of hypocrisy.

Well, that's not for the lack of trying. Given what we HAVE done in the past, as recently as 19th century or later (the presumed age of reason) we certainly would have tried a lot of stuff on any planet we might have conquered including but not limited to, using germ warfare on the local uppity population, destruction of civilization via destruction of their culture and cultural monuments, outright whole sale slaughter, inciting indigenous groups one against another so that the "barbarians" solve themselves etc.

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by Dengar

All I'm saying it's not hypocrisy. It's most certainly wrong, it's most certainly not moral, but to be a hypocrite you actually have to be doing the same thing that you accuse your opponent of.

No you don't. The literal (as in, dictionary) definition of hypocrisy is way more broad than that. As an example, Merriam-Webster says:

: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel His hypocrisy was finally revealed with the publication of his private letters.; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

The Sealing Faction are literally the dictionary definition of hypocrites. Among the other things they are.

[Xeiros]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/LyBSL9IoWcw

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Dengar]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

They "don't harm anyone"? They reach into people's minds and take out the spark! It may not be physical harm but still changing a person's nature to the core without consent, making it so that they no longer have the drive to do anything significant or pursue what they desire, is still messed up. And that's one big thing you seem to be glossing over: consent. These people simply showed up and brainwashed the people who most certainly didn't want to be brainwashed. Again, this is somewhere between lobotomy and rape, a direct nonconsensual violation of the person.

And yes, plenty of things that don't cause physical harm can be just as much cruel and forceful. Plenty of other things aren't, but plenty of things are. Calling someone a name, even a cruel name that no one should say, probably wouldn't constitute violence. But using force to bypass a person's consent and take away a part of who they are probably would. Even more so since it's been established that they have the potential for Love as well as Power, but indications and conversations suggest that all potential for evolution is taken by this technique.

But I'm not arguing whether people are being cruel, immoral or wrong. I'm arguing whether people have a penchant towards violence and force. You sound like you've seen an episode individual is being injured or even physically restrained with physical strength. Now I know this is not the case, but that's the distinction I make between X and Y. Perhaps you don't distinguish between these things, but I do. I'm not even saying that this makes them "less bad". Only that things need to be named their proper names and not another name that also happens to refer to a bad thing.

Again, I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on this one.

Originally Posted by Haak

Actually it does clearly help. Only now have you made a point that actually responds to the post I made from the beginning. I no longer have to repeat myself. XP

....I just repeated myself... In response to you repeating yourself.... I merely elaborated a little bit. Not sure why that somehow sounded like "an entirely new argument".

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

"a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel His hypocrisy was finally revealed with the publication of his private letters.; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

The Sealing Faction are literally the dictionary definition of hypocrites. Among the other things they are.

You know, stating some dictionary definition doesn't automatically explain how said random dictionary definition actually applies to the thing you're describing. Can you please explain to me which behavior contradicts what? I'm not doing this to be contrary, I just want to understand your point. But again, you're free to agree to disagree.



And I want to state this for the record: I'm not arguing that the sealing faction are not antagonistic. Or not morally wrong. Or even not wrong in general. Or even justified in their behavior. Or anything of the sort.

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by Dengar

You know, stating some dictionary definition doesn't automatically explain how said random dictionary definition actually applies to the thing you're describing. Can you please explain to me which behavior contradicts what? I'm not doing this to be contrary, I just want to understand your point. But again, you're free to agree to disagree.

Well, you said (and I quote) "To be a hypocrite you actually have to be doing the same thing that you accuse your opponent of." My point is very simple - no you don't. There are (by any commonly accepted definition of the term) many ways of being hypocritical. And the Sealing Faction is exhibiting some of them in textbook fashion.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by Dengar

But I'm not arguing whether people are being cruel, immoral or wrong. I'm arguing whether people have a penchant towards violence and force. You sound like you've seen an episode individual is being injured or even physically restrained with physical strength. Now I know this is not the case, but that's the distinction I make between X and Y. Perhaps you don't distinguish between these things, but I do. I'm not even saying that this makes them "less bad". Only that things need to be named their proper names and not another name that also happens to refer to a bad thing.

As I said we clearly have a different definition of injury. To me, a person doesn't need to bleed, scream in pain, or show any signs of personal discomfort or biological effects to be seriously injured. If for instance a person was placed against their will into a situation where their darkest pains and desires were paraded before their face and then twisted into an obviously fake fantasy where it turns out well, bombarding them with the things buried deepest, until they are transformed into something they're not, I'd call that a really bad injury. And I certainly would call BS on the lines they're saying. This isn't taking a loaded gun from a small child, this is handicapping that child so that (s)he is no longer able to even hold a gun, while ignoring the variety of other things the child is no longer able to do. You can be hurt and not know it.

Actually, these guys remind me of Naoi from Angel Beats during his villainous start. Yuri was motivated to a significant degree by her resentment and regret over the memory of her little siblings being brutally murdered while she was powerless to stop it. It was painful, but it was something vital to who she was. Then Naoi comes along, grabs her, and uses his powers to reach in and try to overwrite that memory, completely erase the events from her heart so she'll have nothing left to hold her in limbo, even while she screamed that it wasn't real. The only difference here is that the mechanisms we'd seen to this point were dummies set up to give people a chance to fight back, and several of the people were able to break out and break the device assaulting them before it could finish the job. With the old man it was clear that the device would continue to bombard the victim with images and words as long as it remained operational. As I understood the words of the dog, the real thing is worldwide and designed so you can't escape or destroy it, you can only surrender.

Ultimately, despite not literally affecting anything biologically, this technique reaches in, finds the most crucial parts of what make you you, and take it away, leaving an empty shell behind. I for one have a hard time calling that "nonviolent"; I'd call it something that goes beyond "violence" to such a level of violation that violence would be almost merciful in comparison. If you cannot see this, then yeah I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. But seriously how can you say a person was not harmed when they were crippled like that? I honestly cannot understand the logic behind such a statement.

[orion]

Originally Posted by Xeiros

YouTube

https://youtu.be/LyBSL9IoWcw

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

That was an interesting take on these episodes. I love his channel.

[wuhugm]

Shiraishi transferred in!

But that megane ruined everything